Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus share capital and share premium received. The assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber companies and the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee could not justify the huge premium charged nor establish the creditworthiness of the share applicants/shareholders. Most applicants lacked regular income sources or strong financials to justify the investment with huge premium. The assessee did not carry out any valuation to justify the premium charged. The transactions relating to share issuance were not genuine, and the creditworthiness of the creditors was not established. Based on judicial precedents and the CIT(A)'s findings that the applicants were shell companies, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order treating the addition u/s 68 as valid.
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus share capital and share premium received. The assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber companies and the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee could not justify the huge premium charged nor establish the creditworthiness of the share applicants/shareholders. Most applicants lacked regular income sources or strong financials to justify the investment with huge premium. The assessee did not carry out any valuation to justify the premium charged. The transactions relating to share issuance were not genuine, and the creditworthiness of the creditors was not established. Based on judicial precedents and the CIT(A)'s findings that the applicants were shell companies, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order treating the addition u/s 68 as valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
